So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is. Basically my understanding is that it removes the signature part of a transaction so that more transactions can be sent. Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?
Ostensibly, their argument is that "Segwit is not Bitcoin" because signature information is segregated such that older nodes cannot
fully verify Segwit transactions. Their arguments against the Lightning Network are an extension of that. In other words, they argue that if it's not a standard, on-chain transaction, it's not "Bitcoin."
On its face, this is a cop out. They push hard forks on the timeline of a few weeks. Older nodes cannot verify anything on the new chain after the fork has taken place. I don't see how one can support hard forks --- especially rushed hard forks, like Bcash's November fork --- and say that it's about older nodes. The truth is that they have a very different vision for scaling (if you could call it that) than Core. They want huge blocks. Segwit and Lightning are clearly obstacles to that.